Spitfire IX v. FW 190A

Do you agree with the report?

  • Total voters
    38

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Milosh said:
If 150PN C3 was available in 1943 then why did the testing of 1945 C3 fuel not get a 150PN?
Click to expand...

I don't see any testing in the links above, but specifications by the RLM, likely referring to the previous specs of C-3 (pre-1943).

As per ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM REPORT SERIAL NO. ENG-47-1743-A 26 May 1944 PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FW-190 AIRPLANE AAF NO. EB-104 ...

"140 grade fuel was used for all tests since this grade fuel corresponds to the fuel used by the Germans; 140 grade fuel is superior to standard 100 octane (130 grade) fuel. "
 

Wrong link. Try this one, http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf
 

This report on C3 notes (page 6):
"..green C3 fuel has been found to have a very high rich mixture rating when examined under British standard test conditions. However, such trials as have been carried out with captured German engines on German green fuel, or a match for it, have indicated that German engines are not taking full advantage of the possibilities of green fuel at the rich end. At the weak mixture end...there is a deficiency in fuel performance as judged by the U.K methods of test for 100 octane fuel."

Page 8: 2 ) Use of C3. Aviation Gasoline
"Captured documents infer that this type of aviation gasoline must be used in...:- Daimler Benz D.B. 601 N., and the B.M.W. 801. C D...all recent samples are from F.W.190 fighters."

"The indication was this fuel (initially of 94-95 C.F.R. motor rating) was a special fighter-grade fuel as distinct from the bomber and general purposes fuel-...Some fairly recent Me.109.F fighters with D.B.601 E engines have been operating on the B4 gasoline and the contention that the present aero-engines used by the G.A.F. are not being operated to take advantage of the rich mixture potentialities of the C3 type of gasoline render the reasons for the introduction and use of this fuel somewhat puzzling."

Both this report, and the report from Milosh, (page 9) show that German aero-engines in 1943 were unable to make full use of the fuel's potential
So far there have been no German sources presented to show what the state of supply of C3 in 1943 was, but, according to both Allied reports, supplies seemed to have been limited to Fw 190 fighter units and some Ju 88.
 


-The engines were de-rated because the FW-190A did not handle at all well at speeds above 250 MPH, or at full power (tail sinking in dives and either tail sinking or violently wing snapping in turns: Check all non-US Navy flight tests, particularly the Italian theater P-47D comparison done by Front-line US pilots), and contrary to popular belief the FW-190A was a specialized, even "stereotyped" (in Russian front-line evaluation parlance), low-speed turn-fighter.

It boggles the mind that something so vastly described by so many is now completely obscured...

TsAGI turn times saying the contrary are NOT comparative flight tests flown on the same day, and they are at full power anyway, which is detrimental to sustained turn performance, as the German de-rating could suggest (yet unacknowledged today and by many pilots of the time, is that front prop disc traction loads up the wing loading continuously in sustained turns: Check Karhila (Me-109), Hanseman (P-51) and several others for the use of downthrottling in sustained turns)...

The (900 pounds lighter than G) Me-109F was a bit of both: Turn fighter and Boom and Zoomer, but already showing a marked tendency towards the vertical in tactics and pilot accounts...

The Me-109G was mainly a boom and zoom fighter (as was the inferior-turning FW-190D: Check British evaluation conclusions: Inferior handling to the radial "A" version negates any performance advantages), leading to the Gunther Rall image: A "floret" (straight) for the Me-109G, while a SABRE (curved) for the FW-190A...

1943 Soviet evaluations of the FW-190A: "The FW-190A inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"

Johnny Johnson, 32 kill ace post-war comment: "It turned better than the Me-109" (Agreeing with just about all 8th Air Force escort pilots I've heard)

British evaluation: "FW-190A is equal to P-51B in turns. The P-51B vastly out-turns the Me-109G"

German evaluation of an underpowered needle-tip prop P-47D Razorback: "The P-47 out-turns our Me-109G" Source: "On Special Missions. KG 200"

Johnny Johnson himself describes being badly out-turned in flat turns at full power in his Spitfire Mk V against a FW-190A. (I can link his post-war written account later)

The Spitfire Mk IX had a roughly similar turn time to the Mk V (18.5 s. Mk IX vs 18.8 s. Mk V -TsAGI), and in British tests the Mk IX only exhibited a tactical superiority over the Mk V by using climb and dive tactics: This is likely how the Mk IX redressed the balance against the FW-190A: The opposite of Eric Brown's conclusions...

On the other hand, the FW-190A's unsustained turn handling at high speed was drastically inferior, and I even wonder if could even pull a true 6 Gs above 250 MPH despite Kurt tank's claim of 7 Gs at 400 MPH. I think Gs much beyond 5 or 6 were in fact tail-down decelerations cutting inside, then outside, the curve in a loose curve (indistinguishable to a G-meter from actual circular turn Gs), which accounts for the Italian P-47 test comparison describing a mysterious "tendency to black-out the pilot", despite a vastly inferior pull-out angle to the P-47D at high speed...

I would have de-rated the engines too to avoid the bad-handling high speeds, and this reduced worload on newbie pilots that did not have to downthrottle as a FW-190A-8 Western ace later described...

That FW-190A-8 Western ace also described fighting P-51Ds exclusively by downthrottling and slow speed horizontal turn-fighting, meeting any attack head-to-head if the opponent refused to merge...

If the P-51D did not reduce power in those sustained turns (reducing throttle helped the P-51D a LOT in sustained turns: See Hanseman account in William's site) he was a sitting duck in turns against an A-8, which with the stall-catching long-chord version of its ailerons, stretched further on 3 "field-mounted spacers", and with the broad wood prop for better low-speed "bite", could reverse a tailing P-51D straining at full power in a mere TWO 360°s...

What makes this so complicated is that downthrottling for sustained turns was the result of front-line pilot experience, and contradicts the test pilot procedures and theories that have survived since then better than actual WWII front-line knowledge... These misleading WWII test pilot procedures and maths are now coincidentally supported by actual jet-propulsion real-life characteristics, and post-war "energy" combat theories (Shaw and co)... (As if being pushed in a turn made NO difference to being pulled...)

If down-rated FW-190A engines were related to that it would be fascinating...

Gaston

P.S. If you want to grasp how little we know about WWII fighters, consider the currently accepted 6G "Corner Speed" of the P-51D at 2.44 times Stall: Around 250 MPH... In actual tests done by the "Society of Experimental Test pilots" in 1989? 320 MPH... Not even close... Note similarity to Kurt Tank's 7Gs at a very high 400 MPH: No doubt this was the lowest speed he could achieve 7 Gs (IF they were true circular turn Gs, which is possible but doubtful)... This "delay" pushing the Corner Speed so remarkably high is due I suspect to the effect of prop traction and prop disc load: The heavy disc load at full power depresses the wing's ability to turn the aircraft until higher speeds causes higher relative wing lift to finally overcome the prop disc's downward pressure...
G.
 
Last edited:
There is so much here that I hardly know where to start.


I have never seen any observations about the Fw190A not handleing well abover 250mph, or at full power or any of the other negative aspects that you mention, certainly the British tests that count as non US Navy didn't mention any. Any to say that the engine was derated due to this I find shall we say unexpected. De rating the engine hinders so much of the performance, climb, speed, acceleration, take off you name it. Can you support this statement or is it an assumption?


Slowing down in a sustained turn always improves the turn rate in any aircraft, but the vast majority of pilots wouldn't do it so full power tests are valid. Even experienced pilots would only reduce power is certain conditions as you lose energy and that is often fatal.

All Me109's were to use your terminology 'Turn fighter and Boom and Zoomer' as at slower speeds normally less than 250mph they had the advantage on a number of Allied fighters. In particular the P51, P47, Typhoon and Tempest. Allied pilots on these types were warned not to get into s slow turning fight with an Me109 as they would probably lose. At higher speeds the advantage passed to the Allied aircraft for a number of reasons not least of which is the way the control forces of the Me109 increased significantly.


At high speed I can believe these statements, re the last one if you could supply a link it would be appreciated, a flat turn would normally be used to describe a rudder only turn but I cannot think why he would do this in an air to air combat, they were used to reduce the target area for flak when doing ground attack missions.

I don't know Eric Browns conclusions, but don't understand yours either. The only advantage a Spit V had against a FW190 was its turn. The Mk IX redressed the balance giving the Spitfire a better climb than the FW190 and matching it in speed. The only advantage the FW was left with was the roll rate and diving away which left the advantage with the Spitfire

As mentioned before I think your first assumption is wrong and the second part matches the belief that in slow speed combat the FW held the advantage.
 

Bad FW-190A handling above 250 MPH:

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

Note "vastly inferior angle of pull-out", yet despite this they mention "a tendency to black-out the pilot"!!

The solution to this conundrum is that the aircraft "tail sinks" and blacks-out the pilot through deceleration but not turning or pulling out as such... I call this "mushing" and it is very bad news.

Eric Brown quote: "Care must be taken on dive pull-out not to kill speed by sinking, or on the dive's exit the FW-190 wil be very slow and vulnerablel" -Pretty obvious as to the meaning, and this pathetic handling contradicts E. Brown's own contention of using the vertical profitably...

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190 - World War II Forums

Note: "In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks."

"However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

This correlates Brown and the P-47 test and indicates nearly unbelievably poor pull-out or high speed turn performance (although above 370 MPH the turn performance disparities of most types tend to narrow down)...

More from the Russian evaluation: " When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air."

"In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs"."

"Hangs" is pretty explicit as to behaviour not accounted for in calculations or simulations... I have spoken to actual warbird and military pilots who had not the slightest idea what "mushing" was... This is actually typical and even universal... Knowledge of the actual behaviour of these powerful nose-pulled aircrafts, at the extremes of the performance envelope, is shockingly poor, believe me... Even something as basic as the 6 G "Corner Speed" is assumed to be 2.44 stall, or around 240-250 MPH on the P-51D. Actual 1989 test by the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots"? 320 MPH (this because of prop disc nose pull-down effect I think)

Here's more bad high speed FW-190A handling: Note elongated loop that STILL results in a blacked-out pilot...:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-murrell-2dec44.jpg






[/QUOTE]

Slowing down in a sustained turn always improves the turn rate in any aircraft, but the vast majority of pilots wouldn't do it so full power tests are valid. Even experienced pilots would only reduce power is certain conditions as you lose energy and that is often fatal. [/QUOTE]

-There is no losing energy in downthrottled churning props at low speed below 250 MPH... It is jets that lose thrust at low speed, which is why "energy" never made it into WWII lingo... A slower prop aircraft has MORE potential energy because of the "reserve" power in the engine, while the jet loses thrust as it needs speed and fast air at the intake to create thrust. Not so powerful prop aircrafts that actually suffer in turns from too much power to efficiently tighten the radius in multiple sustained 360° turns...

[/QUOTE]

All Me109's were to use your terminology 'Turn fighter and Boom and Zoomer' as at slower speeds normally less than 250mph they had the advantage on a number of Allied fighters. In particular the P51, P47, Typhoon and Tempest. Allied pilots on these types were warned not to get into s slow turning fight with an Me109 as they would probably lose. At higher speeds the advantage passed to the Allied aircraft for a number of reasons not least of which is the way the control forces of the Me109 increased significantly.[/QUOTE]

Not true if you take into account one-sided downthrottling:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

Note the turning here takes places over several 360°s on the deck, and ONLY downthrottling twice reverses the situation. "I turned inside him as I reduced throttle settings" This is SUSTAINED downthrottling...

For more on downthrottling, see Karhila:

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

Quote: ""I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well."

""When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."

You'll have to agree 250 km/h is an unbelievably low "optimal speed": 160 MPH... You cannot argue he meant "high speed" from this...

.[/QUOTE]

At high speed I can believe these statements, re the last one if you could supply a link it would be appreciated, a flat turn would normally be used to describe a rudder only turn but I cannot think why he would do this in an air to air combat, they were used to reduce the target area for flak when doing ground attack missions... [/QUOTE]

Johnny Johnson describes a "vertical turn" in this account: This is WWII lingo for "vertical bank turn", trust me on this... His losing turning combat is due to his being at full power, but in general I have found the Spitfires could only win quickly at VERY high speed in turn fights against radial FW-190As... If the turn fight became prolonged the Spitfire will more often lose in horizontal turns, especially later vs A-8s...:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

Note: "The FW-190 turned better than the Me-109", and that this text was written by him with post-war hindsight and a 32 kill experience...

British tests noticed the Spitfire Mk IX sustained turns no better than a Mk V, and that the Mk IX's main tactical advantage over the Mk V was to use its superior climb rate for vertical maneuvers. The same likely held true in redressing the balance with the FW-190A...

Note the "Russian experience" again: "The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

"A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin."

And, my favourite...: "Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

Add to this British RAE evaluations: "P-51B with full drop tanks will still out-turn the Me-109G. P-51B clean is equal to the FW-190A" (I can source this)


[/QUOTE]I don't know Eric Browns conclusions, but don't understand yours either. The only advantage a Spit V had against a FW190 was its turn. The Mk IX redressed the balance giving the Spitfire a better climb than the FW190 and matching it in speed. The only advantage the FW was left with was the roll rate and diving away which left the advantage with the Spitfire


As mentioned before I think your first assumption is wrong and the second part matches the belief that in slow speed combat the FW held the advantage.[/QUOTE]


-The Spitfire V only had a turn advantage over the FW-190A above 250 MPH OR if the FW-190A kept FULL power. As the Johnny Johnson quote demonstrates, it had NO advantage if it kept full power while the FW-190A used a lowered throttle in sustained multiple 360°s at low speeds.

And just to show this 32 kill ace is not alone in his observations, here's Alan Deere:

"-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..."

Note the multinational coalition of agreeing observations... Against all this there is contradictory evidence from ONE German La-5 evaluation, abyssmal US Navy tests, E Brown dubious conclusions and TsAGI turn times that are NOT intended for performance comparison (they were drag tests in turns for wind tunnel correlation)...

There is more on my side, but for the time being I would encourage you to consider that there is in fact a huge amount of material that is ignored because the reality is counter-intuitive and coincidentally not in agreement with post-war jet-based "energy" theories...

You have to admit that there is a lot here that is correlated widely and being glossed over with suspicious ease since it doesn't fit preconceived notions...

Gaston
 
Here's a mustang encounter from Richard D. Bishop, 11, September 1944, 55th FG, he says

"I'll never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides."

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/55-bishop-11sept44.jpg

Chuck Yeager said similar things about the p-51 vs. fw-190, as did another WWII p-51 pilot has expressed to me who had encounters with the fw-190.

I think the discussion is moot on which was the better airplane.

Here are some more interesting reading, P-51 encounters
Mustang Encounter Reports
 




stop watchinng discovery channel


.........

 

We also do not allow multiple accounts here mike526mp. Please stick to your original account and only use that one account.
 

Besides, I thought this was about the Spitfire IX v. the FW 190A!
 


-You have to read more carefully Bishop's encounter to evaluate it correctly: He describes out-turning the FW-190A's in 5-6 turns at 23 000 ft.: This is a good but not huge rate of gain and is well above the optimal altitude of the FW-190A: I would say the FW-190A had difficulty competing with the P-51D above as little as 20 000 ft...

-At low altitude they were doing well over 450 MPH: Note that I said the FW-190A has very poor handling above 250 MPH, as the P-47D comparison tests demonstrates... (But maybe slightly less comparatively awful to the left above 400-450)

I have never seen accounts where, at low altitude, the P-51B/C/D out-turns the FW-190A in multiple sustained flat 360° turns without the P-51 pilot describing using the 20° flaps/downthrottling/ coarse prop pitch "trick"... (Without that "trick" the Mustang will not even out-turn the Me-109G, especially without the downthrottling aspect, but all three steps are usually used in conjunction in most such cases)

-Unable to out-turn the Merlin P-51 at high speeds and higher altitudes, the FW-190A will often spiral down to compensate. (This relieves the prop disc load and thus helps turning as if the pilot downthrottled, but the turn performance remains poor or average since the speed then stays in the FW-190A's 250 MPH+ zone)

-Most 8th Air Force pilots will tell you the FW-190A turned better than the Me-109G...

-At low altitude the Me-109G-6 matched the P-51D in turns when both turned at full power, to the extent that 15 minutes of continuous turning to one side was not unheard of(!), and I have heard of one case on the TV show "Dogfights" (with the actual P-51 pilot narrating) going on to 30 minutes... No such thing with the FW-190A...

-I have yet to see a single account of a Spitfire of any mark out-turning the FW-190A in multiple consecutive horizontal 360° turns at low altitude (several of the opposite: The Alan Deere account above ended in a score of 8 to 1 in favour of the FW-190s...).

With the Johnny Johnson account we do know we do have the opposite (with the supporting opinion of this 32 kill ace as to its representative nature)...

When the Spitfire out-turns the FW-190A, it is always at high altitude, or immediately after a dive, and in a fairly brief turn lasting no more than one to one and a half turn. Again see P-47D test for mediocre FW-190A turn performance above 250 MPH...

-The early P-47D Razorback out-turns the Me-109G, to the left at least, as well or even more decisively than the Spitfire: I would not be surprised if the early Razorback P-47D with needle-tip prop matched the Spitfire MkIX or Mk XIV in sustained horizontal turns to the left at low altitude, especially if the Spifires cranks out at full WEP power and the P-47D does not...

Note that I mean SUSTAINED turns here: Of course if you yank a Spitfire for the tightest possible turn it will cut a smaller radius than a P-47D Razorback... "Out-turn" in WWII almost NEVER refers to this type of turning: It would then be described as a "radius" of a given size, usually from quite a high speed.

I do welcome contradicting accounts if you have them...

Gaston
 

where to start? I believe I am consumed by indifference..
 
Last edited:
Just an observation about Gastons Gunther Rall quote:
leading to the Gunther Rall image: A "floret" (straight) for the Me-109G, while a SABRE (curved) for the FW-190A...
Click to expand...

I do not believe Rall was comparing turning ability with that statement.

He was actually comparing the 109 to a light, swift, precision thrusting weapon and the 190 to a heavy and slower slashing weapon. The thrust is approx 1/3 faster than the cut (slash). Also, a thrust does not necessarily follow a straight line, it is often curved, particularly for the tip of the sword. Besides, in sport fencing, to be safe, a floret "foil" cannot be straight, it must have a slight curve in it so it will bend when it contacts an opponent.

I also noticed a reference to Spitfires using full WEP in turns. The only Spits that had WEP as far as I know are the ones in the IL2 flight sim.
 
drgondog said:
where to start? I believe I am consumed by indifference..
Click to expand...

Even I gave up. Someone who dismisses US Navy tyests which were undertaken at one of the most up to date establishments in the world at the time, in real aircraft, by highly trained pilots, who misquotes his own evidence, ignores evidence from pilots who were not only experienced combat pilots but include some of the few trained test pilots of the period and finaly thinks that all the above are not quite as accurate or realistic as his experience on IL2. Isn't worth the effort

As for his comments about the apalling handling characteristics of the FW190, total Bull, it was by far the best fighter of its time and widely praised for its handling by one and all.

Finally re the prop disc load, this was covered some time ago when I was training but it was to do with efficiency but as far as I remember B_____R all to do with turning.

I wonder what training or experience he has (I should add, in the real world).
 
beaupower32 said:
Besides, I thought this was about the Spitfire IX v. the FW 190A!
Click to expand...

if gaston likes anecdotes, let's go back for a while to the stang,...the 43 stang, it's not the D of course, but still the brand new model of this time, vs an old model that has since it's introduction already 2 new versions (A4+A5)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
  • Poll
Spitfire MK-IX vs Messerchmitt Me109G-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
La-5 vs Fw 190
Replies
0
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Best Lookin' Spitfire Mark?
Replies
4
Views
2K
CatTheCool
Menu
Log in
Register